The latest health care news is the formation of a group called Revere America whose mission, it seems, is to collect one million signatures to repeal the health reform law. It’s no secret the law is not wildly popular among the electorate. While some surveys show a divided electorate, last week a Rasmussen poll of likely voters found that 58 percent of Americans support repeal. Only 38 percent of those polled believed the repeal effort would succeed, but the former New York governor is predicting enough health care dissidents across the land will sign his petitions and put pressure on Congress to get rid of the new law. He told Fox News: “We’re going to fight, mobilize, and get this repealed.”
Organized as a 501(c )(4), the group will not directly advocate for or against particular candidates, though Pataki says it will not be shy about “using the democratic process to elect people” open to repealing the health reform law. A day after announcing the petition drive in Boston—the kickoff event was held on the 235th anniversary of Paul Revere’s ride warning colonists of the impending British invasion, hence the name—he traveled to Nebraska, where state residents are none too pleased with their own senator’s support of the law. “Our freedom is in danger again today,” Pataki told a crowd in Lincoln.
So far, Pataki’s push has gotten a fair amount of media attention. NECN, a Comcast network, aired a short item about the Boston rally in which Pataki’s ally, former Massachusetts Lt. Gov. Kerry Healy, declared, “We need to repeal and replace Obamacare.” And The Hill quoted Pataki as saying: “Revere America is being launched to counter the forces of liberalism by advancing common sense public policies rooted in our traditions of freedom and free markets.”
On C-Span, Pataki accused Democrats of ignoring public opinion, and the AP took note of his attack on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for ramming the health bill through, “basically ignoring the rules of the Senate and the wishes of the American people.”
It seems Paul Revere borrowed a horse from his friend Deacon John Larkin when he rode from Charlestown to Lexington that famous night in 1775. We do not, however, know whose horse Pataki is riding. Most stories gave more space to speculating about whether his new group was an entrée into presidential politics than asking the crucial question: Who is bankrolling this effort? NECN did note that “Pataki is reportedly throwing $15 million of his own funds into the campaign,” leaving some to speculate he is gearing up for a presidential bid in 2012. USA Today’s political blog, On Politics, mentioned the $15 million figure but added, “Pataki is coy about whether donors will be revealed. ‘You’ll have to ask the lawyers,’ he told us.”
We don’t pretend to know whose money is behind Pataki, but urge some enterprising reporter to find out. A few ideas come to mind. Perhaps the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spent zillions fighting health reform and has launched a campaign to promote American free enterprise? Perhaps the insurance industry, which a few months back channeled money to the Chamber to help in its fight against health reform? Perhaps wealthy Republican businessmen? Perhaps foundations that support conservative commentators and think tanks that use the same kind of rhetoric Pataki has been employing on his road show? They, too, talk of too much government interference, freedom, and liberty—all the buzz words.
We also note that the end of the petition on the Revere America Web site lists a post office box number. Does the group have an office with a staff, or just a PR firm and PO box? More questions for the press to explore.
- 1
- 2
Why, exactly, do readers need to know about who is backing a repeal effort supported by 58% of the electorate? So you can spin it as a cynical ploy backed by powerful interests? I don't hear CJR calling for a "need to know" about similar initiatives on the left side of the spectrum.
#1 Posted by JLD, CJR on Thu 22 Apr 2010 at 08:56 AM
Canada has their priorities right. The US is becoming totally corrupt. These people who are controlling this country, they are devils, they have absolutely no shame.
Hundreds of thousands of people have died because of this mess. That doesn't happen in Europe, Australia or Canada. This is not some kind of rocket science. But this bill was written by insurance companies and drug companies. Its their greedy insurance company agenda.
They are pretending that American families are going to be able to afford this low quality insurance but its not going to be affordable. We're going to waste FOUR YEARS figuring that out. It can't be affordable because the whole insurance layer is there to do one thing only and that is make it easy to deny care with zero accountability. They add nothing.
If we didn't waste that money and all doctors and hospitals were paid directly by a single payer, with no insurance waste, and the healthcare agency bought drugs directly from the the whole situation would change.
But then, they could not make empty promises again and again and get re-elected by desperate people..
They would have to win elections on MERIT.
America might have a chance of becoming a respectable nation again.
Imagine that.
God help us.
#2 Posted by Another cynic, CJR on Tue 27 Apr 2010 at 09:48 PM
To Another Cynic, when Canadians who can afford to do so stop coming down south of the border, and when Canada starts building a pharmaceutical and medical technology infrastructure of its own instead of depending on the U.S. for these important things, I'll start to believe your starry-eyed view (really, more about your domestic hatreds, I suspect, than love for Canada). Until then, I'll remain cynical about such claims.
As for Trudy Leiberman's latest example of passionate partisanship for politicization of medicine (isn't CJR supposed to be a journalism review, rather than a political review on the order of Mother Jones?), the absence of tough questions for supporters of more politics in medicine confirms that too many journalists are in the profession as a form of political activism pursued by other means. OK, by now I know what Lieberman's politics are. How about some tough reporting on the health care issue? Will Leiberman be a source of skeptical monitoring of coverage of the failures of more politics in our medical care - the absence of positive statistical outcomes, the continued increases in costs, increased administrative expenses, more Medicaid and other fraud? Oh, well. Just thought I'd ask. The failures will be interpreted, I suppose, as illustrating the need for (wait for it) more government involvement in medicine. Look at the wonders it has accomplished in education!
#3 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 28 Apr 2010 at 05:01 PM
TO: Mark Richard
FROM: Trudy Lieberman
FYI:
We have been covering the cost of health care for the past two years. Our ongoing series The Cost of Living chronicles what the press has done to report on the high price of care and what's causing it. As for fraud--sales practices etc. we have bee covering that too. Perhaps a more careful reading of our blog is in order.
#4 Posted by Trudy Lieberman, CJR on Thu 29 Apr 2010 at 07:45 AM
To Trudy Leiberman, thanks for responding, but . . . I've been following CJR's coverage of the coverage, and the only time I can remember a tough criticism of a 'universal' health care scheme requiring heavier government was about . . . Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan. A high proportion of what I have read has been framed by the narrative that conservative critics are wrong to call the plan 'socialized medicine' but, so what if it is, that type of thing.
I have not, I confess, read every single one of your posts, so please send refer to me the ones in which political figures, mainstream journalists, academics, and other people in the media/political echo chamber have been called to account for naivete in evaluating the health care issues in other cultures (invariable to the disadvantage of the U.S.), or for glossing over the eventual costs to taxpayers, or for outright dishonesty on the issue of subsidies for illegal immigrants, i.e., formal language forbidding such subsidies, but no enforcement mechanism, thus rendering the language an empty promise to taxpayers.
By every historical precedent, entitlement programs have soared way beyond original estimates in costs to taxpayers and ratepayers, meaning our children and grandchildren. I've not seen much skepticism of the claims of the Obama administration and its amen chorus for asserting otherwise. Singling out Pataki among all politicians for his activism in the repeal movement seems oddly selective - the man's not even in office anymore. So what's behind Trudy Leiberman's activism on this issue? This doesn't come close to being an issue of 'press coverage, does it? So why the intensity?
#5 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 29 Apr 2010 at 12:58 PM
"To Another Cynic, when Canadians who can afford to do so stop coming down south of the border"
When the many the many thousands of Americans who can't afford the health care back home stop coming north of the border, then we'll talk about that.
"and when Canada starts building a pharmaceutical and medical technology infrastructure of its own instead of depending on the U.S. for these important things,"
When America starts funding it's own Universities instead of relying on imported Academia brought by a once strong dollar, then maybe we'll talk about that too. (there are lots of Canadian drug and biotech companies)
"I'll start to believe your starry-eyed view (really, more about your domestic hatreds, I suspect, than love for Canada). Until then, I'll remain cynical about such claims."
Remain cynical all you want. The Canadian system is not the most efficient (provinces all have their own medical infrastructures, standards, billing practices, etc), it's not well funded, it doesn't cover all procedures (like dentistry. You have to buy private dental coverage), and it can be hard to find enough qualified staff because of the import of medical professionals down south, attracted to the higher salaries and the once stronger dollar.
But it covers everyone for a little over the same amount that your government spends on healthcare per capita.
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13899647
graph from story in case you don't have a subscription:
http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/7615/worldhealthcare2007.jpg
In other words, your government could cover the entire cost an entire Canadian system for a little more than what it pays now - no premiums, no deductibles, complete universal health care.
In Canada, having cheap universal healthcare means there's more labor mobility because the coverage is not employer reliant, there are few - if any - medical cost caused bankruptcies, and the healthcare system consumes 6% less GDP in Canada than in the US, There is also no fighting with insurance companies to cover your bills and the process to check in and check out is simplified because of that. From time to time there have been wait issues and when it gets serious, constituents can demand more resources are committed to the system. In America, constituents have no power over private hospitals and private insurance. It's not perfect, but ask a Canadian or an American who's spent time here. The system is better value for the money and the society as a whole.
And of course there are even better systems in Europe, Asia, and in your own VHA.
But we'll discuss that on a day when you're not being such a partisan prick. Grab a coffee, take a breath, and control your urge to be such a nasty ass to Trudy. Her coverage has been comprehensive, critical, and high quality, so keep your attitude in your pants. It isn't necessary.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 29 Apr 2010 at 02:24 PM
Thimbles, without having the time at this moment to respond in detail, and without having the same level of . . . uh . . . class . . . to respond in kind to your obvious cry for anger-management therapy, I'll simply point out that your endorsement of Leiberman's work doesn't exactly work as a refutation of my argument that Leiberman's agenda is political.
Fact-check: the U.S. dollar is not at anywhere near its highest strength, historically speaking, and that includes its strength against the loonie.
I'll stick to my point, unrefuted by you (or Trudy) that Canada is dependent on capitalist U.S. medical industries because politics dictates that Canada spend its money on present consumption than on future investment. The U.S. could live without what Canada, which hasn't done anything in medical research since Banting synthesized insulin in the (pre-national health) 1920s, has contributed to the well-being of U.S. citizens, but Canada's system would become a lot more dysfunctional if there were the same level of research and development in Canada than there is in the U.S. And Canada is not a poor country, or a country with a low level of public intellect.
I'm intrigued by your implication that as many U.S. citizens go to Canada for health care than vice-versa. I've seen some high-profile use of U.S. health care by Canadian luminaries, but not the reverse. Any further information on this phenomenon?
At to costs, suffice to say that if you gave me a population of Canadians, I could probably give you lower health-care costs - since health care is overwhelmingly an issue of what people do or don't do before they ever set foot in a clinic or hospital. Doesn't matter what kind of insurance system is in effect. The Canadians I've spoken to - snow birds in Florida, largely - speak in the abstract with pride of their national health as a point of identity separating them from the U.S. But go into details of their own care, and the griping starts. Same thing in the U.S. - like or not, most people here are satisfied with their own care, which is why politicians who have to win elections felt no danger in opposing Obama's plan, while many who support it are sweating bullets in advance of November.
As noted above, Leiberman is able to defend herself. I'll leave others to form their judgement of who is a partisan prick, who needs to take a breath, and who needs to put their attitude in their pants, as you stylishly put it.
#7 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 29 Apr 2010 at 05:16 PM
"Thimbles, without having the time at this moment to respond in detail, and without having the same level of . . . uh . . . class . . ."
No I'd say you have exactly the same level of class. You walk into a post, criticized the author of being a mother jones commie, attempted to discredit her work by claiming it's all partisan fairy tales, and accused her of lacking a critical edge on what you perceive as her own because of her partisan nature.
Then you admit you haven't read that many of her posts and demand evidence of her covering issues the way you want or else you're not going to be her friend anymore.
You're being a waste of time, and I'm not saying that out of anger, I'm saying that out of observation. You don't have to be a prick, but if you are going act like one I'm going to apply the label.
You have no reason to be going after Trudy like this, especially when you have defended fox's bias so vociferously. It really doesn't matter whether she's a mother jones commie or not in your shallow estimation. Nobody has to refute your "argument that Leiberman's agenda is political" because
a) You flung a bunch of accusations with no substance and called that your argument.
b) Your argument doesn't matter. Who cares about politicization? You sure don't, when it's fox news.
What matters is that she communicates accurate information and that her analysis is sound. She does that job. You don't like her analysis or her info? Boo hoo.
Drop a note when she's wrong and back it up with supporting information. Your throwing labels around is just as bad as mine, and from the tenor of your response I take it you disapprove of mine, so don't do it yourself. Real easy concept to digest, if you're not a partisan prick.
"Fact-check: the U.S. dollar is not at anywhere near its highest strength, historically speaking, and that includes its strength against the loonie."
Factcheck: many professionals and many companies are relocating to Canada because it has better general education, better/less expensive health, and the dollar advantage has been largely negated since "the government" did not let its banks binge on bad assets bought with high leverage to book paper profits.
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Foreign-talent-IT-brain-drain-from-US-to-Canada-flip-flopping-1108126.htm
"I'll stick to my point, unrefuted by you (or Trudy) that Canada is dependent on capitalist U.S. medical industries because politics dictates that Canada spend its money on present consumption than on future investment."
Which is not a good point since
a) the bloated budgets of many medical companies and pharmaceuticals is focused on marketing, executive compensation, stock dividends, and a bit on research. Americans spend most of their healthcare money to present consumption to fund some rich guy's future yacht investment.
b) There are plenty of universities conducting medical research in Canada and there are companies doing private research, but America has ten times the population on a smaller land mass. You don't expect Canada to have all the big companies when their population is 10% of its neighbor. It's like claiming "Pennsylvania is dependant on America's medical industry because they're lazy.". No, it's because of scale, which brings us to:
c) The medical companies are multinational. Glaxo-Kline-Smith Canada is the same as GKS America is the same as GKS Europe. Are we going to claim that Europe is backwards now and doesn't produce anything independent of Americans? How about Japan? Are you really going to claim that ALL THE RESEARCH IN THE WORLD is done by the American Medical industry? Because most of the developed world has highly government regulated, universal health care and they are inventing
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 30 Apr 2010 at 01:08 PM
Did I say 'commie'? Really?
CJR is supposed to be a journalism review. Leiberman's article was about a retired politician. It had nothing to do with coverage.
My only defense of Fox News is that other networks do it, but only Fox gets called out by CJR for doing so. Today's example is Andrea Mitchell's defense of Gordon Brown's private, sneering accusation of bigotry by an ordinary, Labour-voting constituent. Even Brown doesn't defend himself. You don't get more media establishment than Mitchell.
I notice you did not rebut my 'factual' observation that you ascribed the concentration of medical researchers in the U.S. to the strength of the dollar. Instead, you change the subject.
As usual, you project on me your own sins - where is your 'documentation' of where the pharmaceutical dollar goes, for instance? Again, you avoid answering why Canada has little R & D infrastructure. Also, to judge you by your own standards, you decline to expand on my questioning of your assertion that a lot of U.S. citizens go to Canada for their health care. I do not pretend to have all the researched answers to my own questions. I have a lot of tough questions for those who pretend to have the answers, and often do not, like yourself in this post.
To try to make it simpler for you, I'm not talking so much about pure research (as with the examples you cite) as the applied research and engineering in medicine. Canada has zero pharmaceutical sector of its own, which is why they buy from U.S. suppliers in bulk. Europe had a once-thriving pharma sector, but compared to three decades ago, it does not produce the new over-the-counter medications most popular with consumers.
If I heard you correctly, you asserted that the health of a population has little to do with the varying cultural habits (eating, exercise, etc.) and is mainly a function of their political system re public health. I don't want to put words in your mouth. Does Gawande explore the reasons for the divergence, and show that the variable has to do with politics?
Every country has its health-care horror stories, such as the one you cite. Even Canada. (See Malcolm Gladwell's experience with a detached retina and a Canadian doctor in his debate on this issue with Adam Gopnik in The Washington Monthly a few years ago.)
As always, it's been a thin slice of heaven.
#9 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 30 Apr 2010 at 05:09 PM
"Did I say 'commie'? Really?"
It's not nice to mischaracterize people's speech. Some of us will have to remember that.
"CJR is supposed to be a journalism review. Leiberman's article was about a retired politician. It had nothing to do with coverage."
The CJR has done plenty of reporting and research to encourage the press to expand the angle. CJR isn't an Olympic panel with the sole mission of holding up cards measuring others' journalism, and I would be far less interested if it was.
"My only defense of Fox News is that other networks do it, but only Fox gets called out by CJR for doing so."
Fox News gets called out not for it's bias, but for it's disinformation. When its bias projects a misrepresentation of reality, then it needs to be corrected, as does leftist bias when it does the same.
Again, people have been convinced to think of bias as the sin and it isn't. If the result of bias is emphasis, are we going to condemn all acts of emphasis? That's silly.
The sin is the communication of false information and false analysis, fiction spread as truth. That is what Fox news is guilty of and that is what Trudy Lieberman is innocent of until you prove otherwise.
"I notice you did not rebut my 'factual' observation that you ascribed the concentration of medical researchers in the U.S. to the strength of the dollar. Instead, you change the subject."
Quahh? I posted a link detailing much of that brain drain, which occurred during the nineties, is coming home, partly due to the weak dollar and the recession, partly due to post 9-11 visa difficulties. That's not changing the subject, that's illustrating my point. And you, in particular, should be wary of accusing others of changing the subject when they get caught in a corner.
"As usual, you project on me your own sins - where is your 'documentation' of where the pharmaceutical dollar goes, for instance?"
Blame the cjr spam trap and my late night laziness which didn't want to go through the hassle of breaking up a post for the sake of the less than two link rule.
The information is out there is you look for it:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm
http://projects.publicintegrity.org/rx/report.aspx?aid=723
"More than a third of pharmaceutical companies' resources go into promotion and marketing. Annually, the industry spends nearly twice as much on marketing as it spends on research and development, although drug companies report neither total precisely. Various news reports estimate that the industry spent anywhere between $30 billion to $60 billion on marketing in 2004. The trade group PhRMA estimates its members spent $39 billion on R&D that year. As this table shows, the same year, 11 major companies reported spending close to $100 billion on marketing, along with administrative expenses not categorized separately. Those companies reported spending $50 billion on R&D.
In 2004, Pfizer spent almost $120 million for media ads for Lipitor, the world's number-one selling prescription drug, while companies promoting erectile dysfunction treatments Viagra, Levitra and Cialis spent $425 million. Direct to consumer advertisement has also grown significantly: from $791 million in 1996 to $3.8 billion in 2004."
"Again, you avoid answering why Canada has little R & D infrastructure."
It doesn't, per capita. And your assumption that government regulated medicine leads to non-innovation is wrong if you look at the European and Asian systems. Roche and Novartis are swiss pharma giants, GKS is British, Aventis is French, and all the multinationals conduct research and development globally, increasingly in India and China. The America health care system is not responsible for global
#10 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 1 May 2010 at 01:30 AM
My response is in the spam spider hole in spite of my precautions. Wait for it. It will turn up someday.
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 1 May 2010 at 01:32 AM
Any chance of my response getting out of the spam box?
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 3 May 2010 at 01:31 AM
Thanks!
#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 4 May 2010 at 12:33 AM